Beautifully composed, as always; and I particularly like Little 'E's expressions. The content is rather simplistic. Such witchcraft themes seem taken out of some clichéd manual of Wiccan history. Naturally the witches are always blameless, noble, and beautiful, in order that their audo-da-fes can deftly serve an ideological point about a rabble persecuting their moral superiors. Real life is rarely so black-and-white that it can be depicted in scenes taken without modification from compounded 19th-century melodramas - which both the Noble Witch and Freezing Matchstick Girl scenarios are. That said, it is a well-told story, for what it is. I always admire that burly guard - in all his roles, he seems almost selflessly dutiful, rather than corrupted by serving the, well, Devil. Just my impression.

Nope. I really like how they refer to the theme of the comic as cliched while acting like a stereotype of an intellectual, including using an accent aigu when the word "cliche" exists in English without it (and they're thus only necessary if you're speaking French). Unless they're using a language set that includes the accented E, they actually spent extra time to make an unnecessary mark... but then didn't use it on auto-da-fé, where it's also unnecessary (maybe they have a preference for French accents over Portuguese)._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Beautifully composed, as always; and I particularly like Little 'E's expressions. The content is rather simplistic. Such witchcraft themes seem taken out of some clichéd manual of Wiccan history. Naturally the witches are always blameless, noble, and beautiful, in order that their audo-da-fes can deftly serve an ideological point about a rabble persecuting their moral superiors. Real life is rarely so black-and-white that it can be depicted in scenes taken without modification from compounded 19th-century melodramas - which both the Noble Witch and Freezing Matchstick Girl scenarios are. That said, it is a well-told story, for what it is. I always admire that burly guard - in all his roles, he seems almost selflessly dutiful, rather than corrupted by serving the, well, Devil. Just my impression.

Nope. I really like how they refer to the theme of the comic as cliched while acting like a stereotype of an intellectual, including using an accent aigu when the word "cliche" exists in English without it (and they're thus only necessary if you're speaking French). Unless they're using a language set that includes the accented E, they actually spent extra time to make an unnecessary mark... but then didn't use it on auto-da-fé, where it's also unnecessary (maybe they have a preference for French accents over Portuguese).

And the constant injection of irrelevancies to wax on about in order to smokescreen the fact that they've got no clue how to actually engage intelligently with the topics at hand.

Or the use of overly academic language to hide that they're making irrelevant and wrong points, like when they tried to say Monique was "wrong-headed" to view a TV show through a feminist lens because it disregarded the artistic merits of the work. Then stopped talking to me when I objected rationally that that was a dumb position (and you, too)._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Or the use of overly academic language to hide that they're making irrelevant and wrong points, like when they tried to say Monique was "wrong-headed" to view a TV show through a feminist lens because it disregarded the artistic merits of the work. Then stopped talking to me when I objected rationally that that was a dumb position (and you, too).

Like a five-year-old putting on his daddy's bathrobe like a smoking jacket, and puffing on a bubble pipe.

Nope. I really like how they refer to the theme of the comic as cliched while acting like a stereotype of an intellectual, including using an accent aigu when the word "cliche" exists in English without it (and they're thus only necessary if you're speaking French).

Nope. I really like how they refer to the theme of the comic as cliched while acting like a stereotype of an intellectual, including using an accent aigu when the word "cliche" exists in English without it (and they're thus only necessary if you're speaking French). Unless they're using a language set that includes the accented E, they actually spent extra time to make an unnecessary mark... but then didn't use it on auto-da-fé, where it's also unnecessary (maybe they have a preference for French accents over Portuguese).

Autocorrect, actually. Auto-da-fe, by contrast, allowed me no easy auto-correct option, and I did not care enough to add it myself. I am puzzled that you spent ninety-five words analysing the propriety of two diacritic marks.

People have different backgrounds, and different styles of communication, just as, I suppose, they have different ideas about what is polite.

Nope. I really like how they refer to the theme of the comic as cliched while acting like a stereotype of an intellectual, including using an accent aigu when the word "cliche" exists in English without it (and they're thus only necessary if you're speaking French). Unless they're using a language set that includes the accented E, they actually spent extra time to make an unnecessary mark... but then didn't use it on auto-da-fé, where it's also unnecessary (maybe they have a preference for French accents over Portuguese).

Autocorrect, actually. Auto-da-fe, by contrast, allowed me no easy auto-correct option, and I did not care enough to add it myself. I am puzzled that you spent ninety-five words analysing the propriety of two diacritic marks.

People have different backgrounds, and different styles of communication, just as, I suppose, they have different ideas about what is polite.

That was ninety-five words spent mocking you. Bit of a difference there.

Right, right, the matter of being polite is your justification, because being polite is what this is all about and not, you know, a basic ability to actually engage with the conversation.

You're not being polite, so you can pack up that excuse, because no one is buying it. You are being a pretentious and obfuscating caricature of played-at intelligence, and still never even offering the barest basic courtesy of actually reading or responding to the content of other people's posts.

That was ninety-five words spent mocking you. Bit of a difference there.

You're not being polite, so you can pack up that excuse, because no one is buying it. You are being a pretentious and obfuscating caricature of played-at intelligence, and still never even offering the barest basic courtesy of actually reading or responding to the content of other people's posts.

Mockery, yes. Which is mostly what your own posts seem comprised of. But ad hominems have very little content. Contempt is not an argument. Your saying 'no one is buying it' and the other sweeping statements are also things without much content, since nothing more than argumentum ad populum.

Last edited by merest on Mon May 20, 2013 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

Autocorrect, actually. Auto-da-fe, by contrast, allowed me no easy auto-correct option, and I did not care enough to add it myself. I am puzzled that you spent ninety-five words analysing the propriety of two diacritic marks.

I love that you counted how many words I used to tell me I'm trying too hard. Touché.

Quote:

People have different backgrounds, and different styles of communication, just as, I suppose, they have different ideas about what is polite.

Yep. Here we consider it polite to talk to people instead of trying to talk over them. If you can't talk without sounding like the headmaster of an English boarding school, you're a tool.

Also, I care significantly less that anyone be polite than that they have something worth saying, and that when they say something it be well thought out. You could work on putting less thought into your grandiose style and more into the content of your message.

But then I'm a dick like that. _________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

That was ninety-five words spent mocking you. Bit of a difference there.

You're not being polite, so you can pack up that excuse, because no one is buying it. You are being a pretentious and obfuscating caricature of played-at intelligence, and still never even offering the barest basic courtesy of actually reading or responding to the content of other people's posts.

Mockery, yes. Which is mostly what your own posts seem comprised of. But ad hominems have very little content. Contempt is not an argument. Your saying 'no one is buying it' and the other sweeping statements are also things without much content, since nothing more than argumentum ad populum.

All you just did here is prove that you don't actually read anything that you don't feel pertains directly to you. I say plenty that isn't just mockery.

If you can't talk without sounding like the headmaster of an English boarding school, you're a tool.

Also, I care significantly less that anyone be polite than that they have something worth saying, and that when they say something it be well thought out. You could work on putting less thought into your grandiose style and more into the content of your message.

But then I'm a dick like that.

I would think that your first statement - that a particular style makes someone contemptible in your eyes - is incompatible with your second, in which you say that content matters more than style.

My original message had content. I said (but I rely on memory, so I may err) that this strip reminded me of two Victorian melodramas: the Freezing Matchstick Girl, and the Noble, Joan of Arc-ish Witch. I speculated that Mr. Ishida may have gotten these ideas from Wiccan revisionist history, which has been bandied some of these ideas about for decades. Then I said that I liked the burly guard. I also think I said that I liked the strip's composition. None of this strikes me content-less enough to merit a mere ad hominem attack, followed by an essay on two diacritical marks.

If you can't talk without sounding like the headmaster of an English boarding school, you're a tool.

Also, I care significantly less that anyone be polite than that they have something worth saying, and that when they say something it be well thought out. You could work on putting less thought into your grandiose style and more into the content of your message.

But then I'm a dick like that.

I would think that your first statement - that a particular style makes someone contemptible in your eyes - is incompatible with your second, in which you say that content matters more than style.

My original message had content. I said (but I rely on memory, so I may err) that this strip reminded me of two Victorian melodramas: the Freezing Matchstick Girl, and the Noble, Joan of Arc-ish Witch. I speculated that Mr. Ishida may have gotten these ideas from Wiccan revisionist history, which has been bandied some of these ideas about for decades. Then I said that I liked the burly guard. I also think I said that I liked the strip's composition. None of this strikes me content-less enough to merit a mere ad hominem attack, followed by an essay on two diacritical marks.

If you can't talk without sounding like the headmaster of an English boarding school, you're a tool.

Also, I care significantly less that anyone be polite than that they have something worth saying, and that when they say something it be well thought out. You could work on putting less thought into your grandiose style and more into the content of your message.

But then I'm a dick like that.

I would think that your first statement - that a particular style makes someone contemptible in your eyes - is incompatible with your second, in which you say that content matters more than style.

My original message had content. I said (but I rely on memory, so I may err) that this strip reminded me of two Victorian melodramas: the Freezing Matchstick Girl, and the Noble, Joan of Arc-ish Witch. I speculated that Mr. Ishida may have gotten these ideas from Wiccan revisionist history, which has been bandied some of these ideas about for decades. Then I said that I liked the burly guard. I also think I said that I liked the strip's composition. None of this strikes me content-less enough to merit a mere ad hominem attack, followed by an essay on two diacritical marks.

Reading comprehension 101, dude. He said your effort was out of balance and you could stand to put more into content and less into your pretension. I would think that includes actually comprehending the content of others. Which you again fail at.

All you just did here is prove that you don't actually read anything that you don't feel pertains directly to you. I say plenty that isn't just mockery.

I mock you. Because you're a giant tool.

Oh? Plenty that isn't mockery? Let me analyse your post for content.

Rune wrote:

That was ninety-five words spent mocking you. Bit of a difference there.

Responded to this.

Rune wrote:

Right, right, the matter of being polite is your justification, because being polite is what this is all about and not, you know, a basic ability to actually engage with the conversation.

Sarcasm, or at any rate irony.

Rune wrote:

You're not being polite, so you can pack up that excuse, because no one is buying it. You are being a pretentious and obfuscating caricature of played-at intelligence, and still never even offering the barest basic courtesy of actually reading or responding to the content of other people's posts.

I analysed your first sentence. Your second sentence is an ad hominem, accusing me of being pretentious, obfuscating, a caricature, and pretending intelligence - and then (amusingly) saying that I do not offer anyone the 'basic courtesy' of reading their posts!

And that's it.

Is this _really_ what you call 'plenty of content'? I would call the content miniscule, since not engaging with anything except your own feelings and wish to be carefully studied. But I am afraid you aren't saying much.